The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1887-06-27

said, 81 arrest you for striking me-" He
had therefore complied with the statute.
The Marshal then traversed the essential
points raised by the opposite counsel, and
stated that he did not ask for the imposi-
ton of a severe penalty. A fine of one
dollar. each would satisfy him. He merely
wanted to show that the principle was sus-
tanned, that an officer could not be OBJ
structed with i'm punity.
At the conclusion of the arguments,
when it was seen that judgment was going
to be given forthwith. every neck was
strained, and breathless silence reigned.
More intense interest could scarcely have
been evinced had the question at issue
been one of life or death.
THE SUMMING UP.
His Honor said he could have gone much
further into the matter had it been neces-
sary, but his mind was already made up.
The statute he had been requested by the
prosecution to apply to this case was chap
ter 25, section L, Session Laws of 1884. 1t
conferred upon the Court concurrent
jurisdiction with the Supreme Court i'll any
case of assault upon public officer. He
thought it very proper that this case had
been brought before some Court after the
exaggerations made previous to the ar
rest. In fact, it was almost compulsory
upon the Government to clear up the mat
ter by sworn evidence. He thought that
everything went to show that there was
nothing premeditated on either side in the
meeting of the officers with the defend
ants, but on their arrival there appeared to
be great deal of conflicting evidence, and
it was difficult for the Court to find out
from the evidence what was really done
first or said first He was led to infer that
something more occurred than what the
evidence stated. 1t was not natural for
people to begin to fight without some
cause, and the motive appeared to be
wanting. If the defendants were making
a noise, and the officers told them to be
quiet, and they failed to stop, and the
officers gave them proper notice, then they
had right to arrest. An officer would be
justified in making an arrest for disturb
ing the quiet of the night. Whatever hap
pened after the officers went up there, the
Court must take notice that there was
some ill-feellng between Robinson and
Dowsett. Why Dias should take up Rob
than his Honor could tell, unless because
they were both police officers. But there
must have been many exaggeratiOns on
both sides; the evidence was conflicting all
the way through. The section which Mr.
Hatch had called attention to said that
at or before the time of making an arrest
the person must declare himself to be an
officer, and he must give the person he
is about to arrest clearly to understand
what the arrest is for. The arrest would
then be complete. In this case his Honor
could not find that the officer made that
announcement, or that he complied with
the statute If the parties were charged with
ARRAY the Court would have to find them
guilty, but this statute, as he construed it,
made it essential that the officers must be
on some duty. If you are arrested, and
any person undertakes to prevent the
officer, it would be obstructing. But there
must be some hindrance OF express duty, |
which was absent here, and therefore he |
found the defendants not guilty.
Some in the court room were unable to |
repress their sense of approval at the re-
suit, and some attempt at applause |
greeted the judicial utterance
1t was intimated that the other cases
would be heard on Monday.
The Marshal said that as the evidence |
would be almost the same there would be |
little likelihood of finding the defendants
guilty, and he therefore asked permission
to enter nolle prosequi.
This being granted, the defendants were
discharged, and the Court adjourned at
6:45 p. N.